Pakpotpourri2 supports no political party or institution. Pakpotpourri2 only supports a strong, prosperous,independent Pakistan.The views expressed on the blog do not represent the views of the blogs and are the sole intellectual property of the writer(s).

In the situation we, as a nation find ourselves in, caused by multidimensional issues; ranging from spiking inflation, to corruption at every level, from leadership bankruptcy to natural disasters, war on terrorism being fought within our borders, an aggressive India going ballistics as it sees China’s serious intentions to go ahead on the CPEC; we need a time of quiet reflection. At the core lies our failure to groom leaders who should have the vision to lead Pakistan into a promising future. We need to reflect, what have we done, or, what have we not done, to produce and groom a crop of leaders that can lead the nation out of its many challenges, heads up, colors flying!

The national parties have over a period of time, mobilized people with slogans of all kind of promises. However, once in power, they have failed the nation at every level. One reason is genuine ignorance of the economy and searching for answers that need answering. The other reason is, awarding ministries, not on grounds of competence of an individual to run a ministry, nor his knowledge and acumen in the field, but purely party loyalty. This in turn leads to wrong decisions, waste of resources, misdirected human effort and more incompetencies. In any well developed system, the ministries must be run by technocrats, the parliamentarians must legislate and career diplomats should focus on representing Pakistan as Ambassadors. We unfortunately, are so used to these assignments being dished out as sweetmeats to party favorites that we have stopped questioning such practices.

The third reason is a genuine lack of will to do well for the country as compared to do good personally. This conflict between personal gains with national gain brings us to two crucial questions that we, as a nation, must address. High time we do.

The first conflict is the right exercised by a large percentage of leaders, including Members of Parliament, to maintain dual citizenship. Although many countries in the world do recognize dual citizenship, including USA, based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other.” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) However, I have strong reservations about a citizen having loyalty to two countries.

The word “allegiance” means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to Pakistan should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology. Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships has priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our government. Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Alternatively, how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

Political Parties Act needs serious revamping. The seats within party set up and those in provincial assembly must be limited to a given period. What happens though if the system of governance from top down is corrupt and there is unquestionable legal facts to prove it? Does the government go home? Not in Pakistan, it does not. It usually stays around, the buck being kicked around a few times until it rolls down some alleyway. Out of sight and out of mind. There needs to be a Constitutional provision allowing a government to be sent packing. Instead, our leader join together to ‘save democracy’ to the sublime ignorance of the common man. I do not support military takeovers. However, until and unless there is accountability at all levels, no system can succeed.

The other level of accountability is the No Vote Option. This is placing an empty box on the ballot paper-stating: ‘None of the above’ thereby rejecting all contesting candidates in a constituency. Advantages and disadvantages of this must be carefully evaluated before lauding or rejecting the idea. Those who oppose have declared it as a step against democracy. Is it? If the voters are allowed the chance of, rejecting all-it offers them a broader base than to choose between the Devil and the Black Sea. In a number of cases, one hears people refraining from voting particularly in the urban areas because they do not want to vote for the same electable who have bought no change for the better. Urban areas are marked by low resident interaction, an absence of the ‘baithak’ (general commuting place for residents) culture. This is not only true of upscale areas but also lower-middle income neighborhoods.

If NOTA merely mean to state the number of people not willing to vote any contesting candidate in power on the ballot paper, they might as well not turn up to cast the votes. What weightage do the votes cast for NOTA signify if at all? Logical follow-up to this scenario should be to call for a by-election with fresh candidates in the above given scenario. This will make contestants more answerable to the people they represent. This will make them more answerable in terms of broken promises to people they represent. It will also make them more answerable to the people in cases where rampant corruption committed, if any. In the final analysis let, the people decide whom to vote for. That is the essence of democracy. Being rejected via NOTA must also mean they cannot be appointed as advisors and chairpersons of organizations thus stealing in to take their place in corridors of power.

According to the July 14, 2008 edition of the “Times of India,” the caretaker Bangladeshi regime five years ago had also proposed that an election to a constituency should be cancelled if “no votes” somehow amounted to 50 per cent or more of the total votes cast—consequently leading to a by-election (The News 26 Feb 2013).

This is not all, there are other issues. One being of the leaders in a country, investing their personal funds, heavily abroad and not in the country they purport to lead.

Like unconditional support to one flag, should not they be the first to affirm confidence in the country they lead by investing with its people and economy? Should not their stakes be high IN the country and not invested abroad? Does not, investing in foreign countries, give out a signal of distrust to the people and world at large? Cannot this policy lead to a conflict of interest? Should not the leaders lead by example and reaffirm confidence in their own country by investing in sectors that need a boost by leading by example? How can they seek foreign investment by not investing first themselves?

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, we see a reverse of the situation. Our leaders invest heavily abroad, thereby, in times of distress, jump boat to live in foreign shores, leading a more comfortable and plentiful life than the ones they lived while in Pakistan, to be back to resume the mantle when the time is ripe for their return.

The national government, if it wants to be national, ought to be governed by the people and for the people

“Experto Credite.” (“Trust one who has proved it.” Virgil, 2,000 years ago)

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan. Her email is: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9

This is a cross post from Pakistan Today: 22 June 2015

Rate this:

Forty-three were killed and twenty injured as gunmen opened fire on a bus near Safoora Chowk area. The numbers of those dead has since spiked as many succumbed to their injuries later. The bus was carrying members of the Ismaili Community. Gunmen stormed the bus, shooting passengers in their heads. The bus was owned by Al-Azhar Colony, an Ismaili housing project and was bound towards Federal B Area; a regular route. All attackers escaped after the killings. “Six terrorists came on three motorcycles, they entered the bus and began firing indiscriminately. They used 9mm pistols and all those killed and injured were hit by the 9mm pistols.” (Yahoo News, May 12, 2015)

The crime was owned by both ISIS and Taliban. Literature in both English and Urdu allegedly by the attackers printed on plain paper without any insignia or monogram of any organization was found on site of the crime. A typed message spelling out the reasons for the attack. If one recalls, similar leaflets were also found after the US national Debra Lobo was shot. This incident took place in third week of April. She was a faculty member at Jinnah Medical and Dental College.

Karachi has been a violent city of late. Though incidents have visibly lessened since 2013, reasons being both of political and economic nature. Armed wings of political parties; says Huma Yusuf in her research paper, ‘Conflict dynamics in Karachi,’ for the United States Institute for Peace, ‘are the main perpetrators of urban violence. The parties clash over city resources and funds generated through extortion.’(2012) She goes on to say, “Karachi’s ethno political violence is facilitated by an overall crisis in law and order. Many of the gunmen involved in target killings were not political party activists, but members of one of approximately two hundred criminal gangs in the city, many of which boast affiliations with mainstream political parties. The gangs foster a perpetual sense of insecurity in the city by engaging in various criminal activities.”

The attack on the bus set off a stream of theories by analysts, members of civil society and public at large. My in box and whatsaapp is overflowing with interpretations of the attack.

Some believe that Taliban are behind it as claimed in the literature. Others denounce the theory. One message to me states, “It is a false flag. Almost everyone has claimed the responsibility of the tragic incident. It was a professional hit by highly trained operatives, too neat to be Daesh or TTP, who deliberately create a messy situation. Al-Qaida does not go after such communities.” Another says, “In my opinion it was neither of the two. They do not operate with simple pistols.” A third writes, “It can be a false flag operation, to use a simple pistol, the person has to be very confident and experienced which is unlike TTP young suicide brigade so it seems more like an foreign agency’ operative.” This is not all. I am sharing here selected messages that form an interesting collage.

“That sudden change from war drums to love songs from India rang a lot of bells, why would she do that? Why would she execute a somersault? Maybe to start a new wave of similar operations. So she cannot be suspected.” A local daily writes, “A day after the military’s top brass accused Indian intelligence agency RAW of supporting terrorism in Pakistan, the Foreign Office has echoed similar concerns asking India to refrain from interfering in its internal matters.” (May 7, 2015) Mail by another, “A well thought over and planned attack not just a terrorist attack. Ismailis live from Gilgit to Karachi. This is exactly the belt that is going to serve as clotted artery for Economic corridor. The forces who do not want it to happen have been working against it since the inception of Gwader.”

Yet another friend questions, “The attack on a bus carrying Ismailis in Karachi followed by an attack on a guest house in Kabul, with mostly Indians – both countries in a proxy war or a third element involved?” Nevertheless, the possibility of a genuine sectarian attack cannot be ruled out, “As long as we keep on apologizing for these home grown beasts the innocent and helpless will keep on getting killed,” writes a friend. Sharing another interesting response, “When Latif Mahsood is arrested red handed with money bags, Barahamdagh captured travelling on Indian passport and money trail to anti Pakistan elements shows Indian book makers involvement, it all gives lots of credence to Indian involvement in Pakistan but I seriously doubt Indian hand in the attack on Ismaelis because Agha khan is too important a personality for the Indians. For the same reason I exclude possibility of a local political party, therefore, in my view it’s purely a sectarian attack.” Another message refutes this by stating, “The incident was too close to Saulat Mirza’s hanging. The meeting of the British officials with the murder suspect and the visit of PM and COAS to Kakul. Too much coincidence?”

The most pragmatic line comes from a journalist friend, “From what we see as an emerging pattern of the Islamic State and its Al Qaeda affiliates, they breed in those dark chasms of mistrust between states and sectarian differences. There is fusion in confusion.”

This does NOT mean to say I conclusively agree with his thought that it is Al Qaeda and its affiliates that are responsible for this horrific massacre. Though they may well be. I agree with his statement: there is fusion in confusion. Absolutely! There are so many vested interests that without thorough and professional investigation, it is impossible to pin point the culprit(s). It may well be Taliban, or ISIS or a similar outfit. Investigation alone can determine responsibility. Karachi has an unenviable baggage of sectarian violence. Continued crackdowns on these did succeed in containing it for a decent while. The killing of innocent Ismaili civilians has jolted Pakistanis across the board out of their comfort zones. The terror is back. With it comes stench of fear. Reverting to the research paper by Huma Yusuf, “Significantly, as a result of the splinter and freelance model, TTP-affiliated militant is no longer exclusively ethnic Pashtun. According to the CID, Urdu-speaking and Punjabi residents of Karachi are increasingly collaborating with the TTP. The socioeconomic profile of Karachi’s militants also varies: Although the majority of militants reside in the low-income, Pashtun-dominated squatter settlements at the city’s periphery, a growing number hail from educated, middle-class backgrounds. The Karachi faction of the Punjabi Taliban comprises several students enrolled at the University of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest public sector university. The diversifying profile of militants can be explained by soaring anti-Americanism and mainstream resentment against U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. Well-funded militant groups have used sophisticated websites, social media outlets such as YouTube and Facebook, and other communications strategies to reach out to middle-class recruits and exploit their resentment against the West. As such, Karachi’s changing militant demographic could foreshadow future trends across Pakistan.”

There is a pattern to the chaos. It’s systematic. It’s asymmetrical warfare. However the bottom line is; Is there a deadline to reach to a conclusion or culmination of this investigation or is it to be left open ended- and without conclusion-as usual?

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media and Media Laws in Pakistan.’ Her mail ID is yasmeenali62@gmail.comshe tweets at @yasmeen_9

The British Imperialists,had thrust on us,by virtue of Govt of India Act, the clause of Federation,and the cause of our present problems, which persists in all our Constitutions. The requisites of a Federation are quite different, and the term implies a state entity within the fold of a centre. Whereas, Pakistan never had State entities as the term goes,when the Act was passed. We had a Sindhi Province ,a Punjab,a NWFP and Baluchistan as per the Act. The War for Liberation brought in the AJK and Northern areas post 1947. Hence it is being explained how the USA and it’s Federation cannot be compared to Pakistan as was done in the previous articles and the concluding one.

The Confederacy which existed in USA till 1789, of thirteen states,the term “Confederacy” and meaning generally is a league or union,of states or individuals, in a nutshell,it implies a temporary league of independent states for a certain purpose. It was after 1789, that the term Federation came into the use in USA, Federation, now meant a closer union. This distinction was emphasised during the American Civil war between north and south(1861-1865), the seceding forming again a Confederation,which had earlier lasted till 1789, in opposition to the Federal Union.

The system of a federal state as in USA was based,in it’s own way,each state of USA is an independent state,as stated earlier it is a new country composed of different nations whereas,Pakistan is a new name yet we trace our past in a remote time. And have flourished as an entity,as a whole since then.

To further explain the American States composition and functions which has no bearing to our lands,as British ruled over us for barely a little over a hundred years.The point to note is,they did not settle us, like was the case of Australia too,a penal settlement initially hence it justified the Common Wealth Act of 1900 on the Australians.But the Act of 1935, with reference to Federation could not have been and,should not have been,enacted on us.

In the American State ,the powers of a state are inherent, not delegated,each retains all such rights and functions,of an independent government, each has it’s own documentary Constitution,it’s legislature of two elective houses,it’s executive consisting of a Governor and other officials, it’s judiciary whose decisions are final,except in cases involving Federal law; it’s system of local government and local taxation,it’s revenue, system of taxation and debts;it’s body of private,civil and criminal law and procedure ;it’s rules of citizenship. An American, may,through his life,never be reminded of the Federal Government, except when,he votes at Federal elections,his direct taxes are paid to officials,acting under the state laws. Lastly the Constitution of each State is formed and enacted by the State itself, save those states which were not a part of the old Federal Union.And, had joined later, even in such states,the Constitution derives it’s force,not from the national government,but from the people of the state.

When in 1776, the thirteen colonies threw off their allegiance to the British Crown,and took the title of States,they proceeded to unite themselves in a league by the Articles of Confederation of 1781.This scheme of Union proved defective, for it’s central authority and assembly called,”Congress” was THEN, hopelessly weak. It had neither an executive,nor a judiciary ,nor had it proper means of coercing a recalcitrant state. It’s weakness became so apparent, especially, after the pressure of the war,with British had been removed. That the opinion of the wisest men called for a closer and more effective union and thus the present original Constitution(minus the amendments),was drafted by a convention in 1787, was ratified,by nine states(the prescribed number).In 1788, and was set, to work under George Washington as the first President in 1789. The original Constitution was a short document with only 7 Articles,sub divided into sections.

Now to compare this with Act of 1935 is an altogether wrong approach as this Act was the outcome of long constitutional developments,based on Government of India Act 1858 by which the Crown, took over from East India Company. The Act of 1909, which had introduced elective principles,the Act of 1919 which introduced provincial dyarchy and some nation building subjects such as education which had already been introduced in the schooling systems of British India in the 19th Century as per the policy of Lord Macaulay vide his address to the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835.

Unfortunately, when this educational system was introduced and enforced ,it had already been well perfected in India and also the methodology of education had been refined by the hired and trained people to implement the British policies.

By virtue of the Act of 1919,the core subjects like law,order and finance were held by officials appointed by and responsible to British Governors and ultimately to the British Parliament.The Simon Commission in 1927 was greeted by black flags and hartals as it was composed of only the British with no Indian Representation.In a nutshell, this report proposed ,”the setting up of an All India Federation in a distant future”. The Indian Round table Conferences 1931 -1933 composition of which had men, who never decided an issue, which was in fact the objective of the British in the first place and hence the composition of such men in these round table conferences. So,the British could do as they pleased and eventually blame it on the natives, for,”lack of decision”. So as the British wanted it,it was decided;that,both the British India and the princely states would be integrated into an eventual Federal Dominion of India. Here again, the leaders of Congress and Muslim League could not arrive at any agreement, on how,this Federation would be structured ie how power was to be shared and how minority Muslims were to be protected from Hindu persecution, this resulted in letting the conservative dominated British Government, free to draft a legislative proposals in line with its own views, a joint select committee,chaired by Lord Linlithgow,received a draft paper termed as a ,”White Paper” and thus the Government of India Act 1935 was framed. In order to ,appease the die hearts of British Conservative Government, certain safeguards were strengthened. Indirect elections were reinstated for the Federal Assembly(Lower House). Among other things theAct continued to deny the British Indians the right to draft or modify their own Constitution.

The Act of 1935, was the longest Bill ever passed by a Parliament,a good constitution should clearly set out over arching principles,”Not lawyers small print”, the most successful Constitution ever is indeed that of USA, as described in my article with reference to the Federation aspect only.The reason of this long draft was the British Parliaments lack of trust of the politicians in particular.

After Independence Act of 1947 with a few amendments in the Act of 1935 it became the functioning interim constitution of Pakistan. Earlier, the objective of British in enacting this Act was to make a tailor made Constitution,to fulfill the requirement of British needs and it was expected that the Act was to lead to a nominally dominion status India, conservative in outlook,dominated by an alliance of Hindu princes by this stance, the Muslim and the right wing Hindus would have then,naturally,seeked the guidance and protection of the British Government,assure stalemate like situation.

As stated earlier,after the Independence Act of 1947,we as a nation,should have with the help of good jurists,drafted our own Constitution as per own requirements.It is true that we have a massive population growth,we have to and need to,clear our stables.The geographic entities ,a legacy of British Raj should be removed ,a nation which has always existed can never be classed as a Federation. No colonists or charter companies brought in settlers in our Indus Basin. Circumstances forced on us, a British Rule.We must break the chains and re-emerge as one nation as one state.From north to south,east to west.And keeping in view the number of our population,as many provinces as feasible.

If the Indians want to retain the federation aspect,they have truly the grounds for separate entities, a pre-requisite for a Federation.(The End).

Before, the War of American Independence,had started in the true sense,and the flag underwent changes as per the requirements of the people of earlier USA,which we have seen very briefly,IE the entities which were part of this Federation,then called as a Confederacy,and NOT a Federation.A legal difference,between the two which will be explained later,in a subsequent related article.

The composition of these thirteen colonies,(later states),was that,all were called and termed provinces by the Crown,the Governors were appointed by the Crown and had an absolute veto on legislation.Hence there were thus, three proprietary,seven royal,one semi-royal and two charter colonies total ling the figure of thirteen. However,of the two charter companies,there were simple Representative democracies,having the power to legislate without a practical appeal to the Crown,and had no royal Governor or Agent within their borders.

It was their systems,which were the high water mark to which the desires and claims of other colonies gradually approached.Massachusetts,and the proprietary colonies were very nearly on a level with them,and the royal or proprietary governors veto power was rather an annoyance than a fundamental difference.

In all the colonies,representative governments had forced, their way and had fairly early taken a bicameral shapes IE the division of a legislative body into two chambers(a Senate and a House). In the Charter colonies,and Massachusetts,the Lower House was chosen by the towns,and the Upper House from the people at large,and the two Houses made up the Assembly.

In Pennsylvania,and Delaware,there were but only one House. In the Royal Colonies and in Maryland,the Lower House alone was elected by the people.The Upper House,or Council was chosen by the Crown,through the Governor. And the ascent of all three elements was essential for legislation.In the final revolution,the Charter Colonies did not change their governments at all,they already had what they wanted.The Revolution was consummated in the other colonies by the assumption of power by the Lower or popular houses usually known as,”Assembly”.The Governor or Counsel,or both,being ousted.A marked and important distinction is in the local organizations of the northern and southern colonies, all the southern colonies(later states),had begun as proprietary governments, settlers went there as individuals connected ONLY with the colony,to the individual the Colony, was the greatest political factory,his true new identity. His other connection was,his local church,related to the sect of Christianity which he followed, and they being numerous as will be elucidated.

The religion,thus played a dominant role in these colonies in those days,which eventually shaped them in later entities called states.Ethnicity too,was another factor in the making of these early states of USA.

The Dutch meanwhile,had created,in the central regions of both charter companies IE London and Plymouth Companies,a system of,”Patroon ships”,to understand the concept of this Dutch System one has to travel back in the Roman Times but briefly here,it was THE old patron and client relationship.The patron was technically here in USA in these states the First of the Equals,amongst the Dutch Colonists.The client was the New Colonists. It was the duty of the patron to provide his client with the necessities of life and it was the common practice to make him a grant of a small plot of land to cultivate on his own account,further,he(patron),advised him in all his affairs He also represented,in any transactions with the third parties,in which the New Colonists took part.The New Colonist,had to render to his patron,the respect and obedience due by a dependent,but,also when he was in a position to do so and the circumstances of the patron required it,to render him ,monetary assistance also.As the time advanced,the New Colonists amassed wealth,so now they,contributed towards the dowries of a patron’s daughter and also paid fines imposed on the patron by a competent authority,and also towards his(patron’s)maintenance when he had become reduced to poverty.The patron and the colonist were alike hereditary relationships.The traces of this system still exists as can be seen in the actual inner workings of certain classes in USA,the Mafia being the factor discussed. Such were the laws of the patroon ship fraternity prevalent in the central states in the Dutch regions of early USA.

In the religious matters, the colonies and later states were divided being protestants,Mormons,Quakers,Baptists,Methodists,Presbyterian,Episcopals and roman catholics.The Baptists were further divided into northern and southern churches.

The immigration factor which created these later states were the heterogeneous flow from Europe.The educational aspect was also fairly well covered,Harvard College in Massachusetts was founded in 1636,William and Mary College,in Virginia in 1692,Yale College in Connecticut in 1700,Princeton College in New Jersey in 1746,Pennsylvania University in 1749 and King’s now Columbia College,in New york in 1754.

Amongst the causes of revolt against the English Crown,were the other restrictive laws also,imposed on the colonies,in 1699,on the complaint of English manufacturers,that the colonists were cutting them out of their foreign wool markets,the British Parliament enacted that no wool or woolen manufactures could be shipped from any of the colonies under the penalty of forfeiture of ship and cargo. The English manufacturers ruled supreme in Britain and at intervals,”The Board of Trade and Plantations” especially tailor made by the British traders having been created in 1696,saw to it. The Board, from time to time heard the complaints of English manufacturers and traders and framed remedial bills for the British Parliament,the home of democracy,the West minister type of Democracy which we so often quote,and this august assembly,saw to it,that,the bills were passed!The so often quoted,man, MR Pitt ,the famous Prime Minister of England saw to it,as late as 1766, as from 1718 onward in the colonies the manufacture of iron goods ,was alarming to the businessmen of British Islands. So Mr Pitt, asserted the right and duty of Parliament to,”bind the trade and confine the manufactures” of the colonies,and to do all but tax them without representation.

Earlier too, in 1719, the British Parliament passed it’s first prohibition of iron manufactures in the colonies, and in 1750,it also forbade under penalties the maintaining of iron mills,stilling or rolling mills,plate-forges and Stella furnaces in the colonies.Where it suited the British provisos, were made .To quote an example,as it suited the traders and manufacturers of Britain,it allowed the import of American bar-iron into England as it was cheaper and better than the Swedish.

Silly acts and parliamentary laws were passed by British Parliament,to quote only one,in 1731,the Parliament had forbidden the manufacture or exportation of,”HATS”,in or from the colonies,even their transportation from one colony to the other.

The purpose of highlighting all these aspects of early American History,though as yet not fully covered is to enlighten the reader,that the British always drafted laws with ulterior motives.We have to question and check the veracity of these laws and study the past Acts of the British in their various colonies. The Act of 1935 is no exception as will be explained in my subsequent article.
(to be continued)

Rate this:

READ PART I : https://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/act-of-india-1935-part-i/

By Naveed Tajammal

With reference to Pakistan, being termed as a Federation, as per Government of India Act 1935 of British India, an Act, tailor made for the British as per their own geopolitical requirements in relation, to an empire where the sun never set, or the rule of the Union Jack. We as a nation, have to see our past and not the past which the British created and thrust upon us, in the form of various geographic entities, as seen now. A result of British Imperialist, Forward Policies, spanning the whole of 19th century, when the British had started their annexations in our Indus Basin in pursuance of,their own interest,to check the emerging threats of various pivotal powers of the 19th and early 20th century.

As the British finally left, the lid of the proverbial, Pandora’s box was also left open, but this particular Pandora’s box was filled with demons created by the British and their identities established, as per the job requirements, having rewritten our records, and having given us a spin of ,a, “lattoo”, they departed! Yet we labour, learning a script alien to us, a language alien to us, and for to write to express ourselves, we resort to a form of writing, not even remotely associated with us,a result of a little over a hundred years of despotic rule on us. Our indigenous educational system was destroyed, a generation gap created in the 19th century, as well as 20th century by introduction of this English Language. With it’s literature, based on alien cultures and histories tailor made for certain needs, now established, as dogmas.

In a hundred years, come three generations, add another 60 years, you end up with five generations. Then try taking on to yourself to seek the truth, wrapped in a bundle of lies, the unwrapping takes it’s own time, but, if the intentions are honorable and the manner sincere, you can even today hit the bull’s eye, and undo the damage which our old masters have done.

Of the former, two major British colonies in North America and Australia, both later became federations, we have to see the root of their creations and the races which decided to cross the stormy Atlantic Ocean fleeing prosecution of religious nature in their original abodes, and a feudal system despotic in all aspects of life, yet portrayed on us as the most harmless one. Taking USA as a case study of the original, thirteen colonies which formed the nucleus of a state, now called USA, the history is not very old, but of a recent past ,it’s independence almost coinciding with the, influx of Sikh inroads in our central regions, of the Indus Basin.. If we dwell in the past records we see that,. it was Newfoundland ,the most ancient of Britain’s colonial posses ion discovered by John Cabot in 1497. By 1504 fishermen of Normandy, Britannia and Basque provinces were engaged here, by 1517, forty sail ships of Portuguese, french and Spaniards were involved in the business of cod fishery . By 1578, four hundred vessels were engaged in fish business. But the British, had only fifty out of the total quoted. Sir Humphrey Gilbert with letters from Queen Elizabeth, landed at St John’s in 1583 and took possession of the country in the Queen’s name. But soon after, Gilbert, was drowned and the whole maneuver failed. The other nations mentioned however maintained their businesses in these lands.

In 1606, James I, of England formed two companies by a single charter. To one, the London Company he granted, the North American East Coast between 34 degree and 38 degree north, and to the other, the Plymouth Company, whose membership was in West of England, he granted the coast between 41 degree and 45 degree North latitude. The intervening coast between the latitudes 38 degree and 41 degree North or between Rappahannock and Hudson River, was to be common to both. The later colonists, had asked the Crown to declare that, their successor will be free persons and shall enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens, as enjoyed by all Born within the realm of England. The reason for this request was as quite a lot of these settlers were convicts being sent as penal settlers.

The London Company, first sent the shipload under Christopher Newport and it landed near a River on 13th May 1607, in the present State of Virginia, a town was built called, James Town named after the King. Soon other waves of colonists came persecuted by the English Church, others came to Plymouth(Massachusetts) in 1620. In 1632, came up the Colony of Maryland, the land given to Lord Baltimore. In 1663, the South of present State of Virginia was cut off and called, Carolina, later they became the States of North & South Carolina in 1729. And that of Georgia in 1732. Hence five distinct colonies became states out of the London Company’s grant ,the sixth was the Massachusetts by the Plymouth Company. Besides these, Connecticut was next(1662) and Rhode Island came after. The New Hampshire and the next to follow. The other four colonies and later states were between the London and Plymouth Companies.

Meanwhile, the Spaniards had taken over the South of North America and the French moved to it’s North. The reason being the religious differences with the Spaniards. Besides these nations, the Dutch also came in 1609, they had sent Henry Hudson an Englishman, to explore the central region of grant of James First. The Dutch had set up a trading post at,”Manhadoes”(the present city of New York)and a government under the Dutch West India Company was organized, here in 1621, named New Nether land and the town at the mouth of Hudson River,”New Amsterdam”. The next nation was Sweden, who established a colony at Delaware Bay in 1638 but the Dutch took it over in 1655.

By the time of reformation in religious matters in England, the northern and southern English colonies had started looking at these in between colonies as an annoyance and danger. England and Holland went to war in 1664, the English won and took over New Amsterdam and the whole of the Dutch central region.The king of England, awarded this, to his brother, the Duke of York. So New Amsterdam became the State of New York. The Duke of York sold out a part of these lands to Berkley and Cartwright and thus, New Jersey was the result. In 1681, the Great Parallelogram, west of New Jersey was granted to a , Mr William Penn and this became Pennsylvania.Soon after, Mr Penn bought some more land from the Duke of York which became the State of Delaware. The Quakers, a sect of Christians, found refuge here. Soon after, every language of Europe could be found in the subsequent USA. The French, had moved to Mississippi by 1702, under D’iberville, New Orleans was thus founded as was the city of Mobile. The land between Mississippi and Saint Lawrence was then called New France, however by 1750, the British numbered a million and a quarter as opposed to the French who were only a hundred thousand in America then.

The struggle from England was started by these states, being rooted in, the Stamp Act of 1765 and the revenue which was to be raised for the Crown from it. Then came the Tea Tax of 1770, the Boston Port Act of 1774 and the Quebec Act of 1774, which effected the lands North of Ohio and east of Mississippi.

The nail in the cofin for the British was, the Quebec Act, the American puritans , resisted the establishment of the Church of England, a Roman Catholic System in their lands. So started the Independence Movement between 1775 -1788.

In 1776, surprisingly, the first flag of thirteen states, the stripes which represented the states had, also, however the crosses of St George and Saint Andrew on the blue ground in the corner which acknowledged the royal power. It was later in war,that, in 1777,the crosses were replaced by the stars.
(to be continued next week)

Rate this:

To better understand as to why we CANNOT be a Federation as defined in Government of India Act of 1935, which also continues in our Constitution(s), with reference to the geographic entity,which makes the Federation.

By virtue of the Treaty, granted and accepted, on 29th March 1849,and ratified by the Right Honourable The Governor General on the 5th of April 1849. Dulleep Singh, Tej Singh, Deena Nath, Bhai Nidan Singh, Fakir Nuruddin,Gundur Singh and sardar Lal Singh, had signed away the Sikh Kingdom of Ranjit Singh to the East India Company.This Treaty was counter signed by Dalhousie, Elliot and Lawerence. The terms granted to Maharaja Dulleep Singh by the East India Company, on their part was Henry Meirs Elliot Esq. Foreign secretary to the Government of India and Lieut-Colonel Sir Henery Montgommery Lawerence, resident, in virtue of full powers vested in them by the Right Honourable James, Earl of Dalhousie, the Governor General appointed by the East India Company.

The Sikh sarkar, Dulleep Singh and his members above mentioned signed away the following aspects; shall resign for himself his heirs and his successors, all right ,title, and claim to the soverignity of the Sikh State, all the property of the State, of whatever description and wheresoever found, shall be confisticated to the East India Company,in a part payment of the debt due by the State of Lahore to the British Government, and of the expenses of the war. The gem called the Kohinoor which was taken from Shuja ul Mulk by Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharaja of the Lahore State to the Queen of England.

Dulleep Singh, was to recieve from the East India Company, for the support of himself, his relatives,and the servants of the State, a pension not, less than four and not exceeding five lakhs of the,”Company’s ruppees” per annum. That, Dulleep Singh was to be treated with respect and honour.He was to retain the title of a Maharaja, and he was to continue to recieve, during his life, such portions of the above named pension as may be alotted to himself personally,”provided he shall remain,obedient,to the British Government, and shall reside at such place as the Governor General of India may select”.

For any reader, seeking more on the Treaty,he is referred to,”Volume II,Treaties,Engagements and Sunnuds”. Compiled by C.U.Aitchison.Calcutta 1863. Technically, by this Treaty the Sikh State which was then composed of portions of Kabul Suba,Multan Suba and Lahore with the full Kashmir Suba of the Old Mughal Empire, which had lapsed to Nadir Shah in 1739 and later to Ahmed Shah Saddozai(Abdali) in 1747 on the assassination of Nadir Shah by some of his principal officers of his court who had learnt that their names were in the list of prescribed victims, it is recorded that Nadir Shah had informed one of his captains of guard of the Afghans that he entirely had lost the confidence of his household guards,and that he should the very next day,cease and imprison all officers of his guard. These men who had become aware of this,resolved to save themselves by assassination of Nadir Shah. The execution of the plot was committed to four persons among whom were Mohammad ali Khan Afsar and Saleh Beg,one of the captains of the guards,these men,taking advantage of their stations under the pretext of urgent business,rushed past the guards into the inner tents.The noise awoke Nadir Shah and he had slain two of them when a blow from Saleh Beg, deprived him of existence. Mal Colm, the author of,”History of Persia” has been quoted,in the footnotes of the book, a rework of Mal Colms, with editions of Mirza Hairat, compiled by Lieut-Colonel M.H.Court, 15 Bengal Cavalry.1888. According to Mal Colm ,”A persian manuscript in my possession relates an extraordinary and amusing ancedote of Nadir Shah,at this period, which shows how completely he understood the feelings of the most ignorant and wicked of his subjects. A native merchant travelling from Kabul,had been robbed in a plain near Nihshahpur(Iran)and so he carried his complaint to his soveriegn Nadir Shah.”Was there no one near,but the robbers?”Asked Nadir Shah,”None”was the short reply,”Were there stones or bushes,?”Asked Nadir Shah,”Yes,”Said the man,”There was one large solitary tree,under whose shade I was reposing when I was attacked”. Nadir Shah, on hearing this affected great fury and ordered two executioners to proceed instantly and flog the tree that had been described,every morning till it either restored the property that had been lost,or revealed the names of the thieves,by whom it had been taken. The mandate of a king of Persia was always a Law,that of Nadir Shah was considered as irrevocable as fate.The executioners proceeded and the tree had not suffered flagellation above a week,when all goods that had been stolen were found one morning,carefully deposited at the roots of the tree.The alarmed robbers who had heard of the extravagent cruelty that inflicted such blows upon an inanimate substance, trembled at the very thought of the horrible punishment that awaited them, if ever discovered.When the result was reported to Nadir Shah,he smiled and said,”I knew what the flogging of that tree would produce”.

So such a man like Nadir Shah had ruled over our lands for almost 8 years.In the records that relate to our past and its upheavels one also finds the mention of a Treaty signed between Shuja ul Mulk Saddozai a descendent of Ahmed Shah who on 12th March 1834 had entered into a treaty with Ranjit Singh by virtue of which he, disclaimed all titles on part of himself,his heirs ,successors and all the Saddozais to whatever territories lying on the either bank of River Indus that may have been possessed by Ranjit Singh viz Kashmir including its limits East,West,North and South together with Fort of Attock ,Chach,Hazara,Khabel,Amb with its dependencies on the left bank of River Indus and on the right bank,Peshawer with the Yousufzai territory,Khattaks,Hashtghar,Michni,Kohat and all places dependent upon Peshawer as far as the Khyber Pass,Bannu,the wazri territory,Daur,Tank,Garank,Kalabagh and Khushalghar,with their dependent districts Dera Ismael Khan and its dependencies together with Dera Ghazi Khan,Kot Mithan and their dependent territory,Sanghar,Harrald-Dajal,Hajipur,Rajanpur as well as Mankara with it’s districts and the whole of Multan Subah situated on left bank of Indus. The treaty had fifteen clauses,all binding on shuha’ul mulk,which also included sending to Ranjit Singh annually fifty five high bred horses ,eleven persian scimitars, seven persian poniards, twenty five good mules,fruits dry and fresh by the way of the Kabul River as well as pieces of Satin,Choghas of fur,persian carpets,kimkhabs wrought with gold and silver altogether numbering 101 pieces.

Regarding Shikarpur as per treaty quoted the territory of Sindh lying on the right bank of Indus Shuja ul Mulk was to abide by whatever may be settled as the right and proper in confirmity with the happy relations of friendship subsisting between the British Government and the Maharaja,through Captain Wade.

To conclude is there any, justification ,for us to continue with the clause of federation as enacted in the Act of 1935 and persisting in our Constitution(s).Pakistan was NEVER a land of federations,it has always been one state as defined by Arab geographers as Sindh wa Hindh.However for administrative purposes it can be divided on population basis in as many provinces as required.
The writer has over 30 years of investigative historical research experience.

Rate this:

Let me recount some facts here and some opinions. The concluding analysis will become self-evident. If Pakistan still acts the foolish clown, it will deserve to fall flat on its face and smash its nose.

Usually, Saudi Arab has dealt with ‘unsuitable governances’ through a remote control. Yemen is an exception. Houthis, controlling Northern Yemen are trained and equipped by the Hezbollah reportedly, have their strings pulled by Iran. Al-Monitor says, “Their biggest takeover was of the Yemeni port city of Hodeida and the shoreline toward the southwest coast of Saudi Arabia and the Ras Isa marine terminal. This takeover is of great strategic importance. For the first time, Iran has a foothold in the southern gate of the Red Sea, literally on the Bab El-Mandab Strait, which separates Asia from Africa. The western coast of Yemen is also adjacent to the western coast of Saudi Arabia, with all its strategic facilities, posing a double threat: to freedom of movement in the straits and to Saudi security.”(December 11, 2014) This scenario has pushed Israel towards Saudi Arab owing to the desire to curb Iranian action. Egypt supports Arab action owing to Bab el-Mandeb Straits that is seen as a threat to her economy. Is this really about a ‘bitter battle for the oil route at Bab El-Mandab’as claimed by Ahmed Mohamed Nasser Ahmed, a Yemeni political analyst and former member of Yemen’s National Issues and Transitional Justice Working Group at the National Dialogue Conference. (MintPress April 2, 2015) The fact is that the masses are frustrated in Yemen. However, LieutenantGeneral (Retd) Talat Masud rightly points out, “Iran is backing the Houthis which are strong enough to overthrow the Yemen regime but do not enjoy enough support to rule the whole country. This, now, is the real challenge of the region, where foreign intervention, armed insurgencies or popular movements are capable of removing tyrants, but the vacuum that follows creates other monsters.” (April 1, 2015)

In the middle of this crisis came the breakthrough of Iran nuclear deal. This will lead eventually to more than $110 billion dollars a year in sanctions relief. This will not happen overnight. It may take months to happen. Iran’s reintroduction in oil markets and financial systems cannot be viewed with approval by Israel- yet another reason for pushing her in Saudi Arab’s camp over the Yemini issue.

This is a mess, anyway you look at it and Pakistan; owing to its closeness with Saudi Arab is right in the middle of this, like it or not. Hilary Synnott, in her book “Transforming Pakistan: Ways Out of Instability” traces the relationship between Saudi Arab and Pakistan way back to 1969 when pilots from Pakistan had piloted Saudi jets aimed at repulsing Yemeni ingress in Saudi Arabia. Over time, closeness between both nations has deepened. Signing of Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline was a smart move by former President Asif Ali Zardari in 2013 in an effort to bring some degree of balance in the relationship of Pakistan between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In year, 2014 Saudi Arab lent a mammoth $1.5 billion to “shore up Pakistan’s foreign reserves.” Also 750 to 800 Pakistani servicemen are believed to be in Saudi Arabia but none were combat troops, a Pakistani official told Reuters.” (Al-Arabiya April 1, 2015) Arif Rafiq in his piece in Foreign Policy reminds us, “Pakistan received a grant of $1.5 billion — described by the Pakistani finance minister as “gift” with no strings attached.” (April 1, 2015)

A statement that turned out to be fallacious as there is nothing as a free lunch in the world.

Pakistan Saudi Arab relationship notwithstanding, Pakistan must step back and view this situation emerging in Yemen with complete dispassion. “Pakistan shares a 565-mile-long border with Iran and relations between the two countries have long been rocky. If Iran starts to view Pakistan as an active adversary, it has many opportunities to cause trouble across the border that Sharif cannot afford.” (FP April 1, 2015) Can Pakistan afford active confrontation with Iran at this point in time or can Iran afford the same? The answer is no to both. However, should Pakistan be foolish enough to send its forces into Yemen this may prompt Iran to use the Afghanistan border to create instability within Pakistan’s borders.

In determining its position, Pakistan will do well to balance out the new relationship dynamics between Iran and USA that promises to lead to an increased convergence between Iran-US and India in the region. The regional dynamics are changing. Remaining neutral in this conflict will be next to impossible for Pakistan given the outlined relationship above and this is just the tip of the iceberg. It boils down to the question of not whether Pakistan will get embroiled but how. Prime Minister Nawaz has called for a joint session of Parliament. (04 April 2015 SHAFAQNA PAKISTAN) In this joint session, the extent of Pakistan’s involvement will be discussed. Pakistan’s Parliament needs to understand that the Huothis are not attacking Saudi Arab. There is nothing on ground to indicate they have the ability to do so. Why then the furor that the Holy Places are under threat? General Mirza Aslam Beg former COAS Pakistan in his mailed article titled “Causes and Consequences of Yemen Conflict” states, “At the moment, the threat to Saudi Arabia, is real, which is mainly from within. The Saudi Wahabi dissidents, numbering over 10,000 are the second largest component of ISIS in Syria/Iraq. Their only mission is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. The southern region of Saudi Arabia is also vulnerable to Yemeni militants. There is no military threat to Saudi Arabia as such, nor there is a threat to the House of God.”

Manzar Qureshi, a UK based analyst says, “With fast diminishing western and USA’s global dominance, economically, politically and militarily, the world has become multi- polar and it’s beyond US and western powers to keep a control. It’s about time to have a new charter which guarantees world peace, justice and development and do away with the colonial regimes that are used as instrument for the perpetuation of neo-colonialism.”

Pakistan must coordinate with the GCC countries and work towards diffusing the Yemini situation. Turkey having jumped into the fray may well be a part of the effort. Any other nation that can positively contribute towards settlement of the inflamed situation should be readily welcomed on board. Diplomatic support is the best support Pakistan can offer in light of a dangerous geopolitical situation and her own Shia-Sunni divided population. Pakistan must convince Iran to stop supporting Houthis in Yemen. There is one possible way to achieve this. To use Yemen as a bargaining chip vis a vis Syria. This may be difficult to achieve but not impossible. All stakeholders must be on board on this. If US and Iran can achieve a breakthrough in the nuclear talks, so can Saudi Arab and Iran on Yemen. The challenge for both countries will be to bring on board their hardliners. Tough but not impossible.

Let there be no doubts that any foolish and misguided decision by Pakistan to get involved militarily on Yemeni soil will have a severe backlash in the country against the government and even the Army. ‘The government will also face opposition on the issue from PPP, PTI, ANP, MQM, JUI-F and even JI. The question is already being asked if the prime minister can put the lives of Pakistani soldiers in jeopardy to repay favors done to him by Saudi royalty.’ (Editorial Pakistan Today MARCH 29, 2015) The Parliament must deliberate keeping in view long-term interests. Pakistan’s interests.

The writer is Author of, “A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.” She may be reached at yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at: @yasmeen_9

Rate this:

With the building up of the American Revolution, the ranks of the Continental Army were bloated by the joining of “Summer Soldiers” as coined by Thomas Paine. The farmers and other non- professionals who would join up but would either return to their lands for harvesting season to attend to more important pursuits, or disappear in dead of biting winter nights.

The fact that media dropped the bombshell that Pakistan was examining Saudi Arabia’s request to join the Gulf-led operation against Shia Houthi militias in Yemen made one do a double-take. Reuters said, “Gulf broadcaster al-Arabiya TV reported that the kingdom was contributing as many as 150,000 troops and 100 warplanes to the operations and that allies Egypt, Jordan, Sudan and Pakistan were ready to take part in a ground offensive in Yemen.” A knee-jerk reaction by the Pakistani government that led to a furious debate on social media and the drawing room politicians. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, but not before exposing the autocratic manner in which the decision was taken or contemplated to the complete exclusion of the Parliament.

My first concern was that the overlooking of parliament in the final analysis of whether or not to support the Summer Soldiers in Yemen. This was strange. Remember, how we debated and debated, and debated some more and continued debating the decision to hold talks and later to have military strikes against terrorists within our borders? Here we were; in sublime oblivion to our ground problems of terrorism, ignoring the very real danger of an angry Iran leading to a further escalation of ongoing proxy war in Pakistan, and the danger of engaging Pakistan Army on too many fronts diluting the thrust against terrorism on home ground.

To jolt the memories here, Pakistani Parliament had opposed in 2012, drone attacks by America in its air strikes A Parliamentary Commission had demanded that these strikes in the territory of Pakistan must end. Parliament and Parliament alone must determine whether or not Pakistani troops are to be out sourced. Owing to the gravity of the decision, the Parliamentary debate on the subject must be public with coverage by media. As a friend wrote, “Parliament is the best defense for such tricky situations. One can even wriggle out of personal considerations in favor of national interests.”

Beware you Sunshine Patriots, of opening a pit full of worms. The lid will not be put back so easily, if at all. Just as the misdirected policy under Zia is exacting a price today, that is frightening. Recall the words of Thomas Paine, “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.” The Sunshine Patriots here are the supporters of the revolution. They supported the revolution while it went well yet shrank away, taking with them their support once things started going awry.

This is not about air strikes alone. That is probably not the solution to Yemen’s problems. Joyce Karam, a Washington Correspondent for Al-Hayat Newspaper in her piece in Al-Arabiya states, “While the Yemen intervention will need key components such as tribal support and a multifaceted socioeconomic strategy that goes beyond airstrikes to succeed, it ushers a new era on how GCC responds to threats as well as a more independent framework for its relations with the United States.” I could not agree with her more.

Saudi Arab shares a border with Yemen, running roughly 1,800 km give or take. Iran’s supporting of the Houtis and training of their militants had sent alarm bells ringing. The unflinchingly inflexible stance of the Houtis, threats to invade Mecca among other actions has forced many countries to form an alliance against the Houtis. Obama has supported Saudi Arabia, the statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on the situation in Yemen says, “The United States coordinates closely with Saudi Arabia and our GCC partners on issues related to their security and our shared interests. In support of GCC actions to defend against Houthi violence, President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations. While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support. At the same time, the United States continues to closely monitor terrorist threats posed by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula and will continue to take action as necessary to disrupt continuing, imminent threats to the United States and our citizens.”

The question here is not whether or not Saudi Arab or Iran is justified in carrying out their fun games. The question is of Pakistan’s ability to take on the additional burden of opening yet another front. No matter what the opinion of the sunshine supporters here, this is a dumb and foolhardy step to contemplate. Lest we forget, ‘Western intelligence agencies consider AQAP the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda because of its technical expertise and global reach. The US has been carrying out operations, including drone strikes, against AQAP in Yemen with President Hadi’s co-operation, but the Houthis’ advance has meant the US campaign has been scaled back.’ (BBC News March 27, 2015)

David Model, in his paper titled, “Welcoming the Summer Soldier and Sunshine Patriot: Suppressing Dissent in America,” quotes John Adams, who “warned us about the dangers of tyranny even in a democracy when he uttered the words: “The Jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arms always stretched out if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” (02 January 2011)

Pakistan has her plate full of its share of problems. Home grown terrorism, sponsored terrorism, an untenable border between her and Afghanistan, a hostile neighbor, Army engaged in a war within its borders that needs to be fought with single minded focus. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then there are the practical considerations: does Pakistan has the surplus troops to send to Yemen? Can we undertake this venture when at war on our own home ground? It was therefore with a huge sigh of relief that many read Khawaja Asif’s statement that Pakistan will not participate in a conflict that divides Muslim Ummah. In addition to it came another positive statement that, ‘Pakistan ready to facilitate end termination of conflicts in Islamic world with a pragmatic view that involvement in conflict could aggravate fault-lines in Pakistan.’ Clearly, an imitate danger of Pak boots on ground stands averted. People of Pakistan of course support the rational wisdom displayed by the government. As a deeply troubled friend F. M Endrabi wrote to me before Khawaja Asif made the government stance clear, “It seems to be a big war theatre. On one side we have India, on another side Afghanistan, and now may be Iran too…with an ongoing war against terrorism within Pakistan.”

Pakistan government’s duty stands to ensure protection and/or extradition of Pakistanis from a volatile Yemen and heed the appeal of stranded Pakistanis. This must be seen to be the Pakistan government’s foremost duty in Yemen. Besides extraditing them, the Pakistani Consulate must co ordinate with Pakistanis stranded in homes, buildings and other points to safely return to their homeland. Then there is the question of jailed Pakistanis reportedly being threatened by local prisoners according to a local TV channel. How will their security be ensured?

To quote the exact words of Thomas Paine, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”The Crisis.

The writer is Author of, “A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.” She may be reached at yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at: @yasmeen_9

Rate this:

It has been sixty-eight years since the birth of Pakistan. Pakistan’s successive governments have failed to ingrain the concept of ‘unity in diversity’ among Pakistanis by developing policies whether educational, related to economic development, preservation and enhancement of culture, or any other. This diversity in unity is confirmed by many articles of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 whether it is Article 19 that awards freedom of expression and speech to all its citizens or the chapter of Fundamental Rights or many, many others all of which cannot be recounted in this limited space.

Where is Jinnah’s Pakistan? The shape and form of which he declared in his speech of 11th August, 1947, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State. Even now there are some states in existence where there discriminations are made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no discrimination between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”

Why does then Pakistan lie today riddled with hatred, sectarian and religious violence eating away at its innards? Is this the work of common people like you and me or a certain group of people within? One Facebook user commented thus, “This is not the mindset of general Pakistani population… look around you… how many among you are inter-community hating people? But there are a few present in all societies and communities. When exploited by enemies of this nation, then these things happened irrespective of community… Christians are also part of this nation.” (March 16, 2015)

The above quoted comment came on the heels of a recent ugly incident. Reportedly, 17 people were killed and over 70 sustained injuries when two Taliban suicide bombers targeted churches in Lahore on March 15, 2015. The area chosen was Youhanabad, a neighborhood housing roughly 100,000 Christians. The question posed is: Is this to be seen as Christian persecution per se? I think not. How can then one describe “the killing of 61 people in a suicide bombing at an imambargah, as southern Pakistan shut down to mourn the nation’s worst sectarian attack in nearly two years.” (The Newsweek, January 31, 2015) How does one describe the Peshawar attack on APS on December 16, 2014? How does one describe innumerable similar incidents on people of different ethnicities and religious beliefs?

According to SATP,figures of fatalities in violence in Pakistan from January 1, 2015, till March 8, 2015, are 732 in number and from 2003 till March 8, 2015, a colossal 567,44. A horrifyingly painful article in The Times of India titled “Terror attacks drive Pakistan coffin boom” states, “Coffins are not part of traditional Islamic death rites in Pakistan where corpses are normally bound in a funeral shroud and laid upon a rope-cord bed at the time of burial. But when it comes to the mutilated victims of gun, suicide bomb and IED attacks, whose bodies are often in pieces, there is often little choice but to gather the remains in a box.” (January 20, 2015)

The question that one is faced with is: Are we misguided into thinking that these attacks are persecution of one particular sect/religion? It is a mixed palette of ethic terrorism, religious terrorism, domestic terrorism, global terrorism, jihadist terrorism so on and so forth. One overlaps with the other at some point and sometimes it does not.

A very brief mention of some more recent events mentioned make it clear that this is not the case though it may seem so at times. However, these terrorist attacks point towards one thing: undermining the writ of the state. The reasons of terrorism in Pakistan are briefly touched upon by Muhammad Irshadin his essay “Terrorism in Pakistan: Causes and Remedies”: “Issues like poverty, unemployment, lack of health related facilities, illiteracy and lack of justice are considered to be some of the major causes of militancy in Pakistan and elsewhere. According to a World Food Programme study, around 89 of Pakistan’s 112 districts are facing many problems including food insecurity and diseases. The diminishing public expenditures on education and health have forced a sizable population to seek the services of Islamic charities for their basic needs which make them extremely vulnerable to the various forms of vicious terrorist propaganda. Internally, Pakistan’s complex socio-cultural makeup presents a conducive environment for ethnic and religious/sectarian polarisation greatly eroding national cohesion, where each group enjoys transnational affiliations and sponsorship to flex its muscle at home. Due to the slow moving judicial system, anti-state forces feel encouraged to undermine the writ of the government. Similarly, Pakistan inherited a weak political structure. The problem was further compounded when Pakistan’s founding father died before a political structure could get some maturity. In the absence of mature/visionary leadership after the Quaid’s death, Pakistani nation lost their true direction. Inefficient and highly corrupt successive administrations ruined the basic foundations of the country.”

How does one overcome this state of affairs? Obviously military handling of the issue itself is not enough. Addressing issues at grass root level can no longer be avoided. What we also need to understand as a nation is that ‘Pakistan Ideology’ is a fusion of different religions and the multi-ethnicities that form Pakistan. USA, according to a map by the Census Bureau, has Germans as by far the largest ethnic group with 49,206,934 in number. This is followed by others like Africans, the Irish, the English and others. Yet this did not stop them from thinking and acting as Americans first and foremost. We have been Pakistanis since 1947 yet we have allowed ourselves to continue, constitutionally and effectively, being anything but Pakistanis. The Act of India 1935 divided the area today known as Pakistan into various ethnic regions. To this division we have subscribed with each succeeding constitution. What is needed to understand diversity is our unity. I believe we are different on a cultural level; we have no reason to be the same. Like many other countries we are a fusion of different cultures. The beauty of us Pakistanis is the divergent cultures that converge to make Pakistan. Let us celebrate our differences, enjoy them and respect them. As we should respect the different religions within.

The State must nurture and honour cultural programmes, and develop love and appreciation between different cultures via its policies. Simultaneously, it should handle terrorism with an iron hand.

Was it not Pope Franciswho said, “Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassinations, but also by unfair economic structures that create huge inequalities”?

Rate this:

Trains upon trains pulled in the Lahore Railways Station with mutilated bodies of old men and women, children, women pregnant and young men and girls. No one was spared. A few lucky ones who were spared were those who were taken as dead; bathed in blood of those killed around them, buried in the pile of dead bodies, pretending to be as dead as their fellow passengers. This was the standard scene of post Pakistan creation trains heading from India. Unfortunately, instead of moving forward beyond this hatred in 1947, India has chosen to stay stuck in this familiar zone. How has this choice been made, one may ask? Firstly, by illegally occupying Kashmir. This disputed area holds great strategic importance for both India and Pakistan. The Indus and the tributaries flowing from Indus are the source of fresh water for a largely agricultural economy of Pakistan. Controlling water by increasing or decreasing the flow can damage crops in Pakistan. This is exactly what happened soon after Independence, India had shut off the canals of Central Bari Doab. The result was damage to crops it being the sowing season. Historian Naveed Tajammal in an article states, “The article lll of the Indus Water Treaty binds the Government of India not to hinder the flow of the western rivers, i.e. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, to Pakistan, and India cannot store any water or construct any storage works, on the above cited rivers, having been given total rights since march 1973, of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. We get flood surplus of these rivers which is released in case of excessive rains, which helps in recharging our ground waters levels, but that too will cease after the second Ravi-Beas Link is made. Today while we slumber, India has started works on, the following projects; Pakal Dul 1000MW, Kiru 600 MW,Karwar 520 MW, Baglihar (eventual 900 MW),Sawalkot 1200MW (two 600mw units),Salal 390 MW, Sewa-ll 120 MW, and finally the Bursur project on the Marusudar river, which, is a major tributary of Chenab river, here the Foxland intends to build a massive water storage dam, which will control and regulate the flow to maintain levels of Pakal dul, Dul Hasti, Rattle, Baglihar, Sawalkot and Salal Hydro-projects, on the Chenab. Jhelum will be blessed by the foxland with Kishanganga 330 MW and Uri-ll 240 MW.” (Published March 6, 2012)

Kashmir has another significance for both countries and this is the existence of Silk Route. The main land connection between Pakistan and China that passes through Kashmir. Kashmir has led both countries to war. It represents the main bone of contention between both. No amount of superficial handling of relationships between both and by both nations can lead to continuing peace between both nations. Only an intelligent settlement of the dispute can deliver this result. In light of the existing government in India, any such settlement is unlikely. In fact, to expect any government togive away a territory it has occupied, albeit illegally will be political suicide.

Perhaps Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, gave the solution to this issue in his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952; “Pandit Nehru said, “Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.” (Arundhati Roy inThe Hindu November 28, 2010) And this by the way was neither the first nor the last time he opined on the issue.

This main cause has led to a cascading fountain of negativity that has given birth to more actions and reactions that one can recount. A deep distrust of each other, nurtured and watered by the continuing existence of the dispute has stopped both India and Pakistan to move forward confidently into the future developing programmes that focus on their people not upon fear of each other.

This very fear has led India to fear that “with the “official end” of war in terror in Afghanistan heralded by the departure of US combat forces, Pakistan shall launch the jihadists in India-occupied Kashmir. Nothing can be further from the truth. One; Pakistan does not “own” the jihadists as claimed by India and two; Pakistan is facing terrorism within its borders.” (My op-ed September 24, 2013) This very fear has led to focus on the Ayni Air Base also called as ‘Gissar Air Base’ located 10 km west of the capital of Tajikistan-Dushanbe. Between years 2002-2010, India invested approximately $70 million in renovations, installing state-of-the-art air defense navigational facilities. The runway was further extended. This access offers immediate strategic depth in the region to India. This very fear has also led to India’s decision to maintain a strong foothold at the Farkhor Air Base; a military air base located near the town of Farkhor in Tajikistan. To be noted; aircrafts taking off from Farkhor could be over the Pakistani skies within minutes.

This very fear has led to spending of funds from both sides in equipping their armies, their fleets and air forces with bigger, better machines and equipment in case needed against each other. If not anything else; to be viewed as a deterrent towards each other. The question here would be; why must this money be spent based on the fear of each other? Why should not this money be spent on the development of facilities, healthcare and education of its people? According to a U.N research study, “Far more people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet and improved sanitation. Says Zafar Adeel, Director of United Nations University’s Canada-based think-tank for water, the Institute for Water, Environment and Health: “It is a tragic irony to think that in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones, about half cannot afford the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet.” (United Nations University 2010)

India being the one occupying Kashmir must bear greater responsibility for this climate of distrust and hostility between both nations. It has been sixty-eight years to the birth of both nations being free from the yolk of their colonial masters. Yet they continue to live with the legacy that has only created hatred. Is that wise?

Time to take stock.

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9